<p>^ Too much coffee this morning, dstark? ;)</p>
<p>I don’t know. I’m just tired of the misrepresentation. </p>
<p>Some of the least diverse schools are somehow geographically diverse and are full of diversity of thought. </p>
<p>lol</p>
<p>Yeah I walk on the campus of Duke or Vandy or Rice and I see great samples of the US population. Or the world’s. </p>
<p>The joke is those students don’t want diversity. That’s why they go there.
They want rich and smart (that’s true) fellow students. </p>
<p>Most people aren’t looking for connections from the middle or lower classes. ;)</p>
<p>If Duke’s student body was 58% from the lower income groups instead of from the wealthy groups…the wealthy wouldn’t want to go there.
lol</p>
<p>I don’t drink coffee. Maybe I should. :)</p>
<p>ucb,
I agree with your observation in # 36. This is another classic example of the battles that regularly go on in CC-land as posters seek to elevate their own schools. I don’t have a problem with that as everyone is entitled to their opinion. But I also believe strongly that opinions supported by facts (and which considers/respects the quality of others in the evaluation group) carry higher weight. </p>
<p>A major benefit of these comparative threads is that they will often demystify (or confirm!) claims that posters will make about their personal favorite(s). The main objective is a more informed prospective student/family who will use the posted information in making their own judgments on various colleges. A secondary objective is to broaden awareness of and regard for many colleges that may not come as brightly on the radar screens of prospective students. Hopefully, that is what is happening. </p>
<p>dstark,
You’re free to reach your own conclusions on Duke and its 42% receiving FA level, but if what you are saying is true, then the same could probably be said of many other highly ranked colleges (among others, Brown-44% receiving FA, U Penn-43%, USC-43%, Vanderbilt-42%, Emory-41%, Northwestern-40%, Georgetown-40%, Cornell-39%, Wash U-38%, Rice-35%). </p>
<p>As for Duke, I’m not sure what colleges you’re comparing to reach your conclusion that the school is not geographically diverse. I don’t see its geographic data as materially different from most other top-ranked private colleges. </p>
<p>Re your comment on diversity of thinking, you might find the following of interest. Another CC poster did a survey in 2007 of students on Facebook at the nation’s Top 20 colleges (as ranked by USNWR). Of those who responded, here is how they self-identified:</p>
<p>Liberal to Very Liberal , Moderate , Conservative to Very Conservative , Top 20 College</p>
<p>43% , 45% , 12% , Rice
48% , 46% , 7% , Vanderbilt
52% , 40% , 8% , Cal Tech
48% , 43% , 9% , Notre Dame
52% , 41% , 7% , U Chicago
46% , 46% , 7% , Wash U StL
47% , 42% , 11% , Emory
46% , 39% , 15% , MIT
52% , 39% , 9% , Duke
49% , 38% , 13% , Cornell
55% , 39% , 7% , Northwestern
56% , 34% , 10% , J Hopkins
50% , 36% , 14% , Princeton
57% , 34% , 9% , Dartmouth
63% , 33% , 4% , Brown
49% , 37% , 15% , Yale
50% , 33% , 17% , U Penn
57% , 32% , 11% , Harvard
38% , 31% , 31% , Stanford
34% , 32% , 34% , Columbia</p>
<p>I, too, am tired of the misrepresentations and the declarative, but unsubstantiated, statements that ABC School is wonderful (or not!) and blah, blah, blah. Having an opinion is normal, but IMO having an opinion that you can back up with relevant information is better. </p>
<p>My suggestion for you and anyone else who might be “buying” a college—visit, look up information, talk to business people across a cross section of businesses and geographies, etc., ie, really investigate these schools. Do this and you’ll likely begin to see and appreciate the great breadth of excellent undergraduate colleges that we have in the USA.</p>
<p>"dstark,
You’re free to reach your own conclusions on Duke and its 42% receiving FA level, but if what you are saying is true, then the same could probably be said of many other highly ranked colleges (among others, Brown-44% receiving FA, U Penn-43%, USC-43%, Vanderbilt-42%, Emory-41%, Northwestern-40%, Georgetown-40%, Cornell-39%, Wash U-38%, Rice-35%).</p>
<p>As for Duke, I’m not sure what colleges you’re comparing to reach your conclusion that the school is not geographically diverse. I don’t see its geographic data as materially different from most other top-ranked private colleges.“”</p>
<p>Most colleges are not geograhically diverse.</p>
<p>The schools mentioned above have student bodies that are not economically diverse.
Like I said … that doesn’t bother the students because they don’t want an economic student body. Let’s just not pretend that these schools are diverse. </p>
<p>Students from different social classes or different economic classes think differently and bring different experiences to the table.</p>
<p>Ha, this discussion is highly amusing. Yes, Duke, Vandy, and Rice’s student bodies are not representative of the US population as a whole from a socioeconomic perspective. I hate to break it to you, but NO elite school is. ALL of them are heavily skewed towards the wealthy - Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, and all others included. Yet these schools have outstanding financial aid programs so they can be affordable to those with low incomes. And they try to encourage such students to apply. There are, however, *many *obstacles that those in lower-class families and urban areas face that make applying, admissions in general, and eventually acceptance extraordinarily difficult. We are kidding ourselves if we argue that any the finest institutions of America are representative of the US population from a socioeconomic perspective. It’s obviously beneficial to the student body to have an economically diverse student body; but frankly, none of them really are. The differences between the top schools is really negligible. At least it’s promising that the financial aid programs of the top schools have improved considerably over the last few years. FWIW, Duke was cheaper for me based on my need-based financial aid package than Michigan was OOS with a $10,000 merit academic scholarship. Michigan, a great school, gave my sister $0 in grant money (only loans). Edit: Lots of Duke-Michigan fighting going on these boards by certain posters all the time. Not sure why. It’s not like they’re rivals. How about we just all agree that both are outstanding academic institutions? And are near the finest in the country. They both have their strengths and weaknesses, but in the end, are both great places to get an education.</p>
<p>Bluedog, I’m glad you get it</p>
<p>As far as financial aid goes… how many poor and middle class students actually get the aid from the elite schools? </p>
<p>Obviously in your post…when looking at the full payers at these elite schools… the percentages don’t mesh with the society as a whole.</p>
<p>People seem to think because a school gives out financial aid it is diverse. Actually it is the demograhics of the student body that determines diversity… not the financial aid.</p>
<p>Enjoy your time at Duke.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Funny, hawkette, you don’t seem too tired of your own “declarative, but unsubstantiated, statements” such as the following:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Physician, heal thyself!</p>
<p>^^^Bravo!^^^</p>
<p>“Duke provides an environment that provides the best of so many aspects of the college experience. When inside the stone wall that surrounds East Campus, students invariably think, Wow, I’m so privileged to be at Duke” and that mindset goes with them for the rest of their lives. As a Duke student and a Duke graduate, you’re a member of this club, a part of something really unique and really special."</p>
<p>Hey. At least there were no comments on how diverse Duke is. :)</p>
<p>^ Think again! Here’s another one of hawkette’s gems:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>By her own criterion (see below), the above statement carries no weight.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>dstark, I think you are right about that–that many top students want to be among students who are near the top of the socioeconomic ladder and the things they bring with them–good preparation for college, for example, and the means to take full advantage of all the opportunities available on campus.</p>
<p>That said, I would argue that even without a perfectly “representative” student profile in terms of diversity, you can expose students to peers from different backgrounds. The environment may be a lot less homogenous than most students are used to, given their high schools and home neighborhoods. That’s a plus.</p>
<p>As a bit of a tangent, I think it’s important that lower-income students are sufficiently supported that they aren’t shut out of a lot of campus life. Neither they nor their wealthier peers are going to benefit as much if lower-income students are spending their free hours working, and are forgoing things like greek life, athletics, clubs, study abroad, internships, and so on because they can’t afford the cost or the time away from wage-earning.</p>
<p>^^ Federal work-study can provide plenty of research and professional opportunities if the student seeks the right position. As a former undergraduate work-study student, I gained enough resume-padding experience that I had an entry-level job offer after college graduation. I never did study abroad (couldn’t afford it; lack of interest), and still do not regret it. It is very easy to participate in extracurricular activities if one makes the effort regardless of socioeconomic class. Students do not have to “go greek” to have the ultimate college experience.</p>
<p>Hoedown…if you go to youtube and search for People Like US :Social Class in America</p>
<p>and find the the clip that says opening scenes…</p>
<p>At the 3:50 mark you will see a person similar to hawkette.</p>
<p>And at the 7:10 mark you will see what one of things education is about. The clip is the one that is 9:28.</p>
<p>Check it out.</p>
<p>The thread title is “Geographic Diversity.” The discussion re economic diversity was initiated in # 36…and not by me. Anyway, the Financial Aid numbers might say something about economic diversity-after all, there are differences in degree and amount of aid being offered by these colleges- but I agree with those posting that it probably says more about the types of students/families who pursue highly ranked colleges. </p>
<p>More telling and interesting to me is data on % of need met as this reflects an institution’s ability AND willingness to spend capital to support undergraduates, ie, it can reflect the priorities of the institution as they are actually putting their money where their mouth is. </p>
<p>i-guy,
I consider Duke a top college in the next tier of schools just after HYPSM, a view that I doubt is very controversial (although-lol- I’m sure some U Michigan posters will now object). There has been plenty of data posted by me and others that substantiates this view. I can post some if you like…but I suspect that other readers will get bored very quickly. </p>
<p>dstark,
Just so I/others can understand your definition of “geographically diverse,” what would it need to look like in order for you to accept such a description?</p>
<p>More than it does at Duke.</p>
<p>“More telling and interesting to me is data on % of need met as this reflects an institution’s ability AND willingness to spend capital to support undergraduates, ie, it can reflect the priorities of the institution as they are actually putting their money where their mouth is.”</p>
<p>You have to look at how many people get the aid too. The percentage that get the aid. Who gets the aid? Are they merit scholarships? Athletic scholarships?</p>
<p>This is pretty basic stuff.</p>
<p>hoedown,
Re your # 39, I appreciate your comments and would agree with your observations about some less visible colleges that get regularly overlooked on CC and elsewhere. </p>
<p>As for U Michigan, if calling the school one of the Top 35 national universities in the USA for undergraduate students is “damning with faint praise,” then so be it. That is my view and I have plenty of datapoints to support it. Disagreements are inevitable when people’s college affiliations/perspectives are challenged, but it sure would be nice to see in response fewer personal attacks and more substantiated posts presenting a counter argument for why my placement is off the mark.</p>
<p>dstark,
Nice dodge on the geographic diversity question. Crazy, na</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that (the later statement) – it was just an example of one thing a budget-minded student may not pursue. And a well-off student who did go greek might end up limiting his or her exposure to economic diversity.</p>
<p>Many students successfully balance work and extra-curriculars, true. But as I have been reading through comments from some surveys on our campus, I am struck by responses from certain students who said that their tight budgets limited their ability to pursue some of the things that their better-off classmates enjoyed. It is a factor for some students, unfortunately–hopefully a small number that will get smaller.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was referring to your comments over time, in a number of threads. Not just one post in this thread. I am sorry if that was not clear.</p>
<p>hoedown,
When I first came to CC several years ago, I saw U Michigan as a Top 35 national university. Given all of the challenges that I have received from U Michigan supporters over the last few years, I have checked, double-checked, even triple-checked to see where I could be off in my opinion. But outside of the PA scoring (which you know I don’t trust or support), I almost always discover that the data support my view and often emphatically. </p>
<p>I think you understand that my conclusions aren’t that U Michigan is a bad place. Of course, it’s not. But there are lots of very good undergraduate places around the USA and it is my high regard for them that IMO pushes U Michigan into the mid-30s among national universities. And anyway, as I’ve said here and elsewhere, I think that a school ranked in the mid-30s for the USA is pretty darn good.</p>